We walked upright to save energy.

Not sure what forum this should be in, feel free to move to appropriate forum please Mods if required.

An interesting article proposing that Humans diverged from other primates because they expended less energy walking upright than on all fours. Though the hypothesis makes sense it leads me to wonder then why other primates or animals for that matter havent also evolved to bipedalism apart from a few who do a bit of both.

Does less energy used moving from one hunting ground or water hole to the next equate to a better chance at survival, would it also mean that you would spend less time hunting and foraging and therefore be able to spend more time experimenting with tool making and thinking about the world around you, thus using your brain for more intricate equations rather than mundane tasks.

Do you believe there were other causes in our becoming bipedal, obviously creationists believe we have been all along, what are your thoughts regarding this research.

news.yahoo.com

Chimpanzees scampering on a treadmill have provided support for the notion that ancient human ancestors began walking on two legs because it used less energy than quadrupedal knuckle-walking, scientists said.

Some scientists for decades have advanced the hypothesis that millions of years ago, human ancestors began walking upright because it used less energy than quadrupedal walking, gaining advantages in things like food foraging.

cheers mojo.

We became bipedal so we could travel long distances. Other animals do not because they have other equipment for quickly obtaining food. (fangs, claws, smell, etc...)

It was my understanding that it was also to be able to see predators or prey better from the ground, since we moved out of the trees at around the same time.

It's interesting though, the tradeoffs we made for conservation of energy, if that is the reason we became bipeds: back problems, dangerous pregnancies, joint issues, fallen arches, etc.

Originally posted by Vipassana
We became bipedal so we could travel long distances. Other animals do not because they have other equipment for quickly obtaining food. (fangs, claws, smell, etc...)

Not sure if that is completely true, there are many quadrapedal animals that migrate huge distances still today, they cover much greater distances than we could, why did they not evolve to bipedalism if that is the root cause. Do you have any links or references i can look at.

Thanks.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
It was my understanding that it was also to be able to see predators or prey better from the ground, since we moved out of the trees at around the same time.

This has been my understanding as well. Moving from food source to food source is difficult when predators are all around you. We developed the ability to walk on two feet so we could be aware of danger BEFORE walking right into it. This directly resulted in a higher rate of us not dying, and thus increased our population and reproduction rates.

I hadn't heard of the reason for that aspect of evolution as an energy saver, but it wouldn't surprise me to know that one change can result in a variety of differences.

Originally posted by The Cyfre

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
It was my understanding that it was also to be able to see predators or prey better from the ground, since we moved out of the trees at around the same time.

This has been my understanding as well. Moving from food source to food source is difficult when predators are all around you. We developed the ability to walk on two feet so we could be aware of danger BEFORE walking right into it. This directly resulted in a higher rate of us not dying, and thus increased our population and reproduction rates.

This was also my understanding until reading this article, which caused me to think, well if we evolved to bipedalism as a result of being able to see predators better then why didnt other quadrapedal primates. If the root cause was the conservation of energy and the other was a byproduct of this change then that makes more sense to me.
This conservation of energy would then mean less time spent hunting and foraging and more time being spent investigating our enviroment and experimentation with fire and tool making. Hence our domination over other species as a result? What do you think.

Some alternate research on Human bipedalism. This research suggests that we were already walking upright before we came down from the treetops. So far three theory's at least have been put forth in this thread, do any stand out as being more likely or logical than the others?

I think you could probably put forth strong arguments for all three, or perhaps a combination of all. Would evolution even work like that, taking an advantage from one habitat and using it to advantage in another habitat ie, from treetops to savannah. Or was it merely coincidence that our ability to stand and walk upright in the tree's also became an advantage on the ground?

Link 1 www.cbc.ca

A human ancestor the size of a chimp walked upright six million years ago – about three million years earlier than Lucy, the famous bipedal hominid, researchers say.
Scientists used computer-enhanced X-rays called CAT scans to study a fossil thighbone from the creature, known as Orrorin tugenensis.
The scans suggest the human ancestor walked upright like pre-humans, not like apes.

Link 2 www.cbc.ca

But now British researchers have analyzed nearly 3,000 examples of orangutans moving in trees in the Indonesian rainforest, and found that the apes often walked upright — using their hands to grasp branches for stability — on the thinnest branches.

Link 3 www.cbc.ca

For many years the predominant argument has been that we started out as quadrupeds, walking on all fours, evolved knuckle-walking, in the way chimps and gorillas do today, and from there stood up. According to this theory, we didn't begin this process until we were already out of the trees and living on the African Savannah. However, new fossil evidence doesn't bear this out, as it's apparent we were already bipedal before we left the forests,

Thanks to V Kaminski for the links, much appreciated.

Anyone have any thoughts on the conflicting research.

cheers mojo